FMCSA refuses correction request on side underride guards on trailers

“The suppression of the [cost-benefit data] undermines this effort and could result in IIHS being seen as lacking justification for a side guard award. This could damage our reputation as a trustworthy, objective organization committed to public safety, weakening our position when advocating for all types of traffic safety improvements. And it could discourage trailer manufacturers from offering side underride guards that could prevent hundreds of fatalities and even more severe injuries each year.”

FMCSA was not swayed. In a response letter published on Thursday, the agency pointed out that, based on federal criteria for information quality, IIHS “has the burden of proof with respect to establishing the necessity for correction. The IIHS has not met this burden and FMCSA has determined that there is no inconsistency” regarding the exclusion of the cost-benefit data. “FMCSA has determined that no correction is necessary.”

FreightWaves reached out to IIHS for comment.

The determination made by FMCSA is the second setback for side-guard safety advocates in less than a month. In March, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ruled there was insufficient evidence in a petition submitted by the Institute for Safer Trucking to warrant an investigation into whether truck trailers without side underride guards should be recalled as unsafe.

Side underride guards can prevent passenger cars from sliding underneath trailers and injuring or killing the occupants.

After considering the petition, NHTSA determined that the issues raised by the safety group are better addressed in a separate underride guard rulemaking currently under review at the agency.

FMCSA listed several reasons explaining why the cost-benefit analysis cited by IIHS, which was part of a report issued by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and paid for by the Department of Transportation, was ultimately left out of FMCSA’s review.

The analysis, according to the agency, “overestimated the target population without detailing the source of the estimate, overestimated the effectiveness of LPDs [lateral protection devices] in various crash scenarios (including pedestrian and bicyclist impacts with the cab and front of the vehicle where no LPD is present), and underestimated the cost of LPDs, installation and maintenance cost, and additional fuel cost due to the added weight of LPDs.”

Also, the methodology used in the Volpe report “included incidents in which the vulnerable road user was struck at an impact location where LPDs would not be present, such as by the front of the commercial motor vehicle,” FMCSA asserted. “Therefore, the analysis would result in an over-estimation of the target population associated with LPDs, thereby leading to a significant over-estimation of the benefits.”

Related articles:

• NHTSA nominee raises concerns among truck safety advocates
• NHTSA committee blasts DOT in truck underride report
• NHTSA denies crash victim families’ request for truck rear-guard probe

Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.